Though it's unintuitive, I put probes above drones because I see drones as being more of an extension of a controlling vessel (or other entity with sufficiently powerful computers), so it lacks the ability to operate independently. There are fewer things that probes are capable of doing, but they are able to do those things independently of another entity.

Flatfingers wrote:Is there evidence that Josh is thinking of implementing both drones and probes as different things?

The last I saw (as I referenced in my earlier post in this thread) was him saying he'd decided to rename "probes" to "drones" -- has something about that changed?

I'm not implying it hasn't; just asking if this distinction is documented anywhere for everyone to enjoy.

Oh, no. Just my own thoughts. The only reason I make a distinction at all is because I think of probes as being capable of independent operation and drones being extensions of a vessel. But this again is based only on my own thoughts of how drones should operate, nothing official.

ThymineC wrote:The only reason I make a distinction at all is because I think of probes as being capable of independent operation and drones being extensions of a vessel. But this again is based only on my own thoughts of how drones should operate, nothing official.

Ah, OK.

I actually like that distinction as I think it could help to spark ideas for different kinds of enjoyable gameplay. I'd think there'd be economic differences to go with the functional differences, for that matter.

ThymineC wrote:The only reason I make a distinction at all is because I think of probes as being capable of independent operation and drones being extensions of a vessel. But this again is based only on my own thoughts of how drones should operate, nothing official.

Ah, OK.

I actually like that distinction as I think it could help to spark ideas for different kinds of enjoyable gameplay. I'd think there'd be economic differences to go with the functional differences, for that matter.

But not canonical. Yet.

In combat, drones would likely fulfil a similar role to "MMO pets", where you deploy them, they behave in some specific (perhaps somewhat configurable) manner, and they stay close to you. Different types of drones could function differently in combat; some could simply deal direct damage through lasers or guns, others could help scramble enemy sensors, etc. Outside of combat, they could be used for construction purposes, transfer of goods between two entities and field repairs. Drones would be controlled directly via your CPU, requiring a certain amount of CPU allocation their way and a functional comms system.

As their name implies, probes would largely be used for gathering information - either by probing asteroids to reveal their internal structures (and hence help identify the best asteroids to mine and the best spots within them to target), or by being sent into deep space to provide intel coverage over a large volume of space. Probes can be used to track down interesting spatial anomalies like wormholes, or to track down other vessels.

With mining, you could launch probes at asteroids to scan them, and then direct drones at them to mine them out.

martixy wrote:Physics says what suffers is acceleration not top speed.

In a computer game set in an imaginary world that has "jump holes" linking self-contained discrete star systems, transfer beams, starship-piloting robots, and warp lanes, I think it's safe to assume that physics is negotiable.

martixy wrote:Physics says what suffers is acceleration not top speed.

In a computer game set in an imaginary world that has "jump holes" linking self-contained discrete star systems, transfer beams, starship-piloting robots, and warp lanes, I think it's safe to assume that physics is negotiable.

We'll the third one is pretty realistic. They can already operate cars, and it's probably harder to navigate a car through an urban environment than a spaceship through empty space.

martixy wrote:Physics says what suffers is acceleration not top speed.

In a computer game set in an imaginary world that has "jump holes" linking self-contained discrete star systems, transfer beams, starship-piloting robots, and warp lanes, I think it's safe to assume that physics is negotiable.

We'll the third one is pretty realistic. They can already operate cars, and it's probably harder to navigate a car through an urban environment than a spaceship through empty space.

And the piloting of "starships" is already pretty much done with robots, as they get their course informations and act accordingly without much human intervention besides the "creative" part of path creation using slingshots and such

Yes, well spotted; you've all correctly identified the one example that doesn't fit with the others, implying that you don't actually disagree with the larger (and more interesting) point the examples were offered to illustrate.

martixy wrote:Physics says what suffers is acceleration not top speed.

In a computer game set in an imaginary world that has "jump holes" linking self-contained discrete star systems, transfer beams, starship-piloting robots, and warp lanes, I think it's safe to assume that physics is negotiable.

Background. I found the game some months ago and I've been a lurker in the forums. Recently someone brought it up while I was advocating for Freelancer and I decided to check up on it again and I must say, progress has been impressive for a 1-man show.
Also - negotiable physics are a personal pet-peeve of mine. There are certain necessary concessions in core gameplay and technology, but I say let's not go wild.

martixy wrote:
Background. I found the game some months ago and I've been a lurker in the forums. Recently someone brought it up while I was advocating for Freelancer and I decided to check up on it again and I must say, progress has been impressive for a 1-man show.
Also - negotiable physics are a personal pet-peeve of mine. There are certain necessary concessions in core gameplay and technology, but I say let's not go wild.

We can be as wild as we want so long as the laws governing the world are plausible, internally consistent and support the feel of the game. There's a plausible means of explaining limited top speed and acceleration anyway.

martixy wrote:negotiable physics are a personal pet-peeve of mine. There are certain necessary concessions in core gameplay and technology, but I say let's not go wild.

Fair enough. Insisting on an unnecessary and impossible simulation of real-world phenomena in the invented world of a game is a pet peeve of mine. Maybe we should put our peeves in a ring and see which emerges victorious.

I would like to add that my comment wasn't meant as a dismissal of your view. That kind of one-line, "ha-ha, your point is not worthy of serious consideration" annoys the heck out of me -- apologies if that's how mine came across.

I actually don't object to real-world physics as a starting point for thinking about features in a science fiction game. My view is simply that, by definition, "game" implies that simulation of real-world phenomena must be secondary to "is it fun for most players?"

At that point, as Thymine says, internal coherence to the laws of physics purely within the invented world is what matters most. If that world includes FTL travel in any form, then I think it can fairly be said to already be "wild" -- if that's tolerated, you're already well down the rabbit hole into Wonderland.

That does not mean I'd be OK with "magic" or floating cat heads or similar bizarries in what's otherwise a pretty straight science fiction game. If that's what you mean by not going crazy, I'm right there with you... but from the perspective that those things stray too far from consistency with the science fiction premise, not because they aren't "realistic."